Describe in detail the steps of the IRAC legal analysis process.

The IRAC Formula:

IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, and Conclusion) forms the fundamental building blocks of legal
analysis. It is the process by which all lawyers think about any legal problem. The beauty of
IRAC is that it allows you to reduce the complexities of the law to a brief idea.

The First step – Issue:

The key to issue spotting is being able to identify which facts raise which issues. Because of the
complexity of the law, the elimination or addition of one fact (such as time of day or whether
someone was drinking) can eliminate or add issues to a case thereby raising an entirely different
rule of law.

Second step – Rule:

The issue is covered by a Rule of law.

Simply put, the rule is the law. The rule could be common law that was developed by the courts
or a law that was passed by the legislature. The rule of law by breaking it down into its
component parts. In other words, ask the question: what elements of the rule must be proven in
order for the rule to hold true.

Third step – Analysis:

Compare the facts to the rule to form the Analysis.

This important area is really relatively simple. For every relevant fact, you need to ask whether
the fact helps to prove or disprove the rule. If a rule requires that a certain circumstance is
present in order for the rule to apply, then the absence of that circumstance helps you reach the
conclusion that the rule does not apply.

Fourth Step – Conclusion:

The conclusion is the shortest part of the equation. It can be a simple "yes" or "no" as to whether
the rule applies to a set of facts. A clever professor will often give you a set of facts that could go
either way in order to see how well you analyze a difficult issue.

The mistake many students make is to never take a position one way or the other on an issue.
Most professors want you to take a position and support it in order to see how well you analyze.

Another common mistake is to conclude something without having a basis for the opinion. In
other words, students will spot the issue, state a rule, and then form a conclusion without doing
the analysis. Make sure that whatever position you take has a firm grounding in the analysis.
Remember that the position you take is always whether or not the rule applies.
If a rule does not apply, don't fall into the trap of being conclusive on a party's liability or
innocence. There may be another rule by which the party should be judged. In other words you
should conclude as to whether the rule applies, but you shouldn't be conclusive as to whether
some other result is probable.

In addition, the conclusion should always be stated as a probable result. Courts differ widely on a
given set of facts, and there is usually flexibility for different interpretations. Be sure to look at
the validity of the opponent's position.

ASSIGNMENT 3

Client’s Facts: The client is charged with burglary. He broke a window, entered his neighbor’s
garage, and took three cases of beer. The garage is a separate building located about six feet from
the neighbor’s house.

Rule of Law: Section 2397 of the state penal code defines burglary as the breaking and
entering of the dwelling house of another with the intent to commit a crime.

Case Law: In the case of State v. Nelson, the court ruled that “a dwelling includes
outbuildings close to but not physically connected with a dwelling house, if such buildings are
capable of being fenced in.”

Assignment: Based on the information presented in the problem, prepare a complete and
detailed analysis of the question of whether there is sufficient evidence to support a charge of
burglary.

Analysis

1. The issue

The client is charged with burglary. He broke a window, entered his neighbor’s garage, and took
three cases of beer. The garage is a separate building located about six feet from the neighbor’s
house.

2. The Law

Rule of Law: Section 2397 of the state penal code defines burglary as the breaking and entering
of the dwelling house of another with the intent to commit a crime.

Case Law: In the case of State v. Nelson, the court ruled that “a dwelling includes outbuildings
close to but not physically connected with a dwelling house, if such buildings are capable of
being fenced in.”

3. Applying the law to these facts

 Since the garage was a mere 6 feet from the occupied dwelling based on the rule of law this at
first glance does not meet the requirements for burglary. However, with the case of State v.
Nelson it describes “a dwelling to include outbuildings close to but not physically connected with
a dwelling house, if such buildings are capable of being fenced in.” With this case law it opened
up for outhouses, garages, sheds and other non-connected buildings to be included in Rule of
Law Section 2397.

4. Differences between these facts and facts of the cases that might lead to a different
outcome.

There are some important differences between these facts and the Nelson case which might lead
a court to decide for the State and against the Defendant. If the law does not specify buildings
that are not attached, then at first glance it looks like the Defendant found a loophole and may be
able to walk on a technicality. However, strong case law in State v. Nelson allows for
prosecution of Defendant’s that break this rule and possibly in the near future a change to the
actual law. A full investigation needs to be completed to determine if a fence could be erected
around the garage. If not, then we would stick to the original Section 2397 and move for
immediate dismissal.